Fashionable, but unable to tell fact from fiction (testing4l) wrote,
Fashionable, but unable to tell fact from fiction

For a while, I was involved with ucscb and yam forum. Some of you (I'm looking at you boymaenad) are familiar with it. Most of you aren't. In any case, after a while, I tired of kicking aging dogmatic geeks about.

Then the election happened and the overly whiney liberals started making rather undemocratic statements. spcecdt (who still reads forum) mentioned this to me. We came up with a brilliant idea, so I put it into play.

I ended up in a number of flame wars where I suggested that low speed limits and speed bumps suck. Immediately, all sorts of people (who've never met me, let alone been in my car) start calling me a horrible and irresponsible driver. Lots of fun was had.

Measure J was on the ballot this last election (and annoyingly voted down). It was to widen highway 1 with a carpool lane. The parallel between people talking about moving to Canada because Bush won and measure J was swift.

I went (possibly far too) overboard to make the point. I modelled it on a fellow by the name of rstevew who is frequently irrational, but fun to read because of it.

Do a search for "little punk the spammer" to see the post. The rest of it is mildly amusing because watching hope get crushed often is.

And just because I should really make a rational coherent point in this showcasing of my ability to emulate a complete and utter asshole, I'll mention that there's two things that people forget about democracy:

1) Your vote doesn't count more than anyone else's. Just because your candidate/measure didn't win doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It means that more people disagree with you than agree with you. Deal with it. It's a cold, hard fact of life that you'll find out about when you move out of your parents' basement, get a job, and listen to real music instead of that emo crap.

2) Democracy oughtn't be "majority rules". If your candidate finds that more people express their agreement with him than express their disagreement with him, it doesn't mean you suddenly have the right to ride roughshod over the rest of the world. Democracy was meant to be a system of compromise, not mobocracy.

I find it very telling about the way we look at democracy that the last person who became famous for a compromise was Henry Clay 150 years ago.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.